A Response to “Between God and the Lab”

I read the recent opinion piece by Dr. Idris regarding a student’s dilemma on having to do animal experimentation for his dissertation. The author argued that scientific disciplines should take personal ethical beliefs into account.

Dr. Idris makes a good point, as medical practice allows, to a limited extent, for these beliefs related to specific procedures. In states where abortion remains legal, physicians and other medical workers are not obligated to participate in these procedures based on religious or other personal beliefs. Similarly, doctors and others are exempt from participating in assisted-dying procedures in polities that permit this assistance. Conversely, the President’s belief that all medical workers should be able to choose the patients they will or will not care for is unacceptable under all present Western ethical theories.

Furthermore, there are situations in which Science, if it is to progress, requires that specific actions be taken – and the recommended rodent study is one of those occasions. I find it difficult to believe that the student embarked on a doctoral program in a field that requires animal experimentation. Did he think he would be exempt from this component? If so, the present dilemma is of his own making!

The development of a potential biological agent for human disease treatment requires two steps before human study, for both effectiveness and safety, and neither can be obviated. To do so is unethical – given historical practices – and constitutes malfeasance.

These are “in vitro” (lab bench) experiments and animal research, usually starting with rodents and progressing to other animals, including primates. It is considered a preferable ethical choice if the compound is dangerous to harm animals rather than humans. However, this progression would end at whatever point ineffectiveness, severe morbidity, or mortality was demonstrated. It is possible, given the advances in AI, that animal research may be eliminated at some future point; however, we will not achieve this capability for many years, as the complexity of biophysiological functioning remains to be fully elucidated.

There are standards for the ethical treatment of animals in research, as well as additional ones set by the facilities using them. Experimentation on animals is, at a minimum, uncomfortable for them, and they should endure as little discomfort as possible. Breeders and researchers occasionally violate humane standards, but the student could choose to adhere to them strictly and treat the rodents as humanely as possible, thereby reducing his concerns.

I have considered his situation through several scenarios, and cannot find one that would allow him to complete his dissertation without the animal component at his present institution or most other Western universities, given the potential promise of the compound, if we consider its potential to alleviate human suffering an ethical “good.”

If he decides that he cannot perform animal research and wishes to complete his degree, he could explore universities in non-Western countries that may award it without requiring the rodent component. He will have to consider that this degree would likely limit his ability to obtain a future post-doctoral fellowship and employment in a Western institution.

Alternative options would include his changing to another field of Biology or a related one (e.g., Public Health) that does not require animal experimentation, and doing nothing further with his discovery – which could constitute nonfeasance, given the compound’s potential. Another option would be to assign his work to a researcher who is not averse to conducting the necessary animal studies. If he does this, he cannot, in any manner, make any use of future data gained from animal studies, subsequent human studies, or treatments that may arise from the research, for if he does, he becomes complicit in the animal studies and violates the personal ethics he attempted to avoid breaking earlier.

Aside from discussing the student’s dilemma, the author complained about the inability of ethics – religious or secular – to provide definitive answers. This is a common complaint that arises from a misunderstanding of ethics and philosophy. I, myself, believed in this manner before I studied Medical/Bioethics.

The purpose of ethical theories is to provide frameworks, or ways of thinking about issues, rather than to derive conclusions. It is not uncommon for two individuals using the same framework to draw opposing conclusions.

Even Jewish Medical Ethics, which are ultimately derived from God’s laws, considered inviolate, allow for varying conclusions based on circumstances, with the only limitation being that the intent of the biblical law is not desecrated. For example, specific Sabbath prohibitions can be waived to benefit a seriously-ill individual, with ‘serious’ being broadly interpreted, if delaying until after the Sabbath could result in an adverse health consequence or death.

Thus, given the information provided by the Imam he consulted, as well as that of another individual, the student should have had sufficient information to weigh the value of his personal beliefs and the required animal study needed to complete his dissertation (and his future in his chosen profession).